Finally…Kloppenburg Concedes
May 31, 2011
In a press conference today in Madison, WI, JoAnne Kloppenburg conceded the state supreme court election to Justice David Prosser.
After losing by 7,316 Kloppenburg demanded a statewide recount, even though no prior recount in the state had changed the final outcome by more than 500 votes. Needless to say, Kloppenburg failed to change that history: the recount netted her just 310 additional votes.
Judicial Activism/Imperialism Run Amok in New Jersey
May 26, 2011
Last year, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attempted to rein in the state’s overreaching Supreme Court by refusing to reappoint long-time activist Justice John Wallace. The state Senate, however, blocked Christie’s appointment, creating a vacancy on the bench that was temporarily filled by another activist judge. This week, those chickens came home to roost in the form of a 3-2 decision in which the Imperial Court ordered Christie to spend an additional $500 million on school districts described as “mismanaged (and sometimes corrupt).” Over at “The Corner,” Daniel Foster points out that despite flooding these school districts with billions of dollars in recent decades they remain, “by and large, absolute failures.”
For his part, Christie said the decision “represents everything that’s wrong with how Trenton has historically operated.” “As a fundamental principle,” Christie declared:
“I do not believe that it is the role of the state Supreme Court to determine what programs the state should and should not be funding … The court should not be dictating how taxpayer dollars are spent….The Supreme Court is not the Legislature. It should not dictate policy. It should not be in the business of discussing specific taxes to be raised. And it should not have any business deciding how tax dollars are spent.”
This latest case of judicial activism run amok is just another example – as if one were needed – about why Americans across the country are rising up and demanding greater accountability from their public servants on the bench. In Iowa, citizens rose up last November against an imperial Court that ordered the state to redefine the meaning of marriage. In Indiana this week, citizens protested a Court decision that says they can’t resist unlawful searches of their homes. Now in New Jersey, the Court is ordering the state to spend $500 million it doesn’t have against the express wishes of the elected governor.
The George Soros-bought-and-paid-for “merit” selection campaign and its gullible (complicit?) allies in the media want us all to believe this groundswell of opposition to judicial imperialism is somehow due to “special interests.” The truth is, it’s just people sick and tired of public servants (i.e. judges) who think they’re above public accountability.
Indiana Supreme Court Touches Off Protest, Recall Demand
May 25, 2011
Could Hoosiers follow Iowa’s example and dump justices who don’t fit their values and see themselves not as impartial arbiters of the law, but as imperial overlords? Stay tuned!
A new ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that citizens have no right to stop unlawful police searches of their homes has sparked a mass protest in Indianapolis and calls for the removal of Chief Justice Steven David. Justice David rose to the bench through the state’s “merit” selection system, but will have to face voters in a retention election in November 2012. Indiana’s House Speaker, Senate President and Attorney General have all asked the Court to reconsider its ruling.
Rally organizer Jeff Houk, who has launched a PAC to oust Justice David, said it’s “important for people to realize that we do have a political voice and there are ways that we can get our voices heard.” If those words sound familiar, it’s the same sentiment expressed by Iowans who struck a blow against judicial imperialism last November. Both Gary Marx at NRO’s Bench Memos and Gavel Grab have comments on the controversy.
The People Speak!
May 23, 2011
Proponents of “merit” selection like to pretend that the public is firmly behind their scheme to disenfranchise voters and allow unelected, unaccountable legal special interest groups to pick judges. The claim usually comes courtesy of some push-poll that misleads poll-takers into believing that “merit” selection will cure every social ill from nasty judicial campaign ads to the price of a gallon of gas. Well, last month Rasmussen polled voters about their attitudes toward picking judges – and guess what! – voters overwhelmingly believe they should be the ones in charge.
Among likely voters, about two-thirds (65 percent) said judges should be elected, while just 22 percent say judges should be appointed. A stunning 69 percent say judges should actually be term-limited – a sign of voter frustration with an increasingly activist, imperial and unaccountable judiciary. The results mirror a 2008 poll by the American Justice Partnership (full disclosure: I’m president of AJP). Hat-tip: American Thinker.
Can the Tarheels Keep Pace with the Volunteers?
May 17, 2011
Last week, Tennessee decided to boost its economy the right way. Rather than spending billions of dollars that it doesn’t have, the state opted for a simpler, more sustainable approach: it put caps on liabilities and punitive damages.
Tennessee was one of the few remaining states in the Southeast that had not yet amended its laws to prevent excessive lawsuits. Now, according to State Senator Mark Norris (R), the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act” has “leveled the playing field” for Tennessee both regionally and beyond. “It’s much more than tort reform” Norris said. “We must be competitive with other states.” With sensible and fair liability limits, Tennessee will be a more attractive option for prospective businesses – like Volkswagen. Just last month the German auto manufacturer built its first car in its new Chattanooga plant, a plant that has already spent over $686 million dollars in local and state contracts.
Now, it’s North Carolina’s turn. Tomorrow, “Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses” hits the House floor. The bill proposes a number of standard reforms, including limits on medical liability litigation, limits on attorney fees in personal and property damage, and limits on landowner liability for trespassers. The bill also has a powerful component: liability protection for pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA . Though there’s a lot at stake for the Tarheel State, so far the local media outlets aren’t paying much attention.
Last December, the University of North Carolina beat the Tennessee Volunteers in the Music City Bowl. Now, it’s time to match Tennessee’s score on tort reform.
The People are Sovereign in Iowa, Not the Court
May 11, 2011
A recent Des Moines Register editorial raises important questions about the power of courts and legislatures in our democratic society. Unfortunately, those questions are hidden in a ranting screed against Iowa citizens who removed three state Supreme Court justices in the last election and legislators who now seek to impeach four more justices – all of whom voted to overturn the Iowa Legislature’s Defense of Marriage Act.
In defending the Court, the Register rolls out John Marshall’s famous opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which established the principle of judicial review. But the Register confuses judicial review with judicial supremacy. While accusing impeachment supporters of believing “the Legislature can do no wrong,” the Register essentially asserts that the Court can do no wrong. Read more
You Can’t Make This Stuff Up
May 11, 2011
Omar Bin Laden, son of the deceased terrorist, has issued a letter announcing that he “reserves the right to take legal action against America” both in the U.S. and internationally. No word yet from any trial lawyers over a contingency fee arrangement with the Bin Laden clan.
Legal Elites Look to Push Aside Voters in North Carolina
May 11, 2011
Three high-powered North Carolina lawyers representing the North Carolina Bar Association apparently don’t like the kind of judges ordinary citizens are electing to the bench. Who do they think would do a better job? Well … actually … people like themselves! Under a plan the Bar is pushing in the state legislature, a 16-member commission, including 8 lawyers chosen by various legal special interest groups such as the state trial lawyer lobby, would replace the collective wisdom of North Carolina’s 6.1 million registered voters.
One favorable editorial suggests the new system will ensure that “people who understand what makes a good judge” get to decide who makes it to the bench. If you live in North Carolina and you’re not a powerful lawyer, chances are you don’t qualify.
In support of this voter disenfranchisement scheme, one lawyer related how a sitting Chief Justice actually had to run against … get this … a “fire extinguisher salesman!” Back in 1974! Oh, the horror! Wonder what these leagle eagles would think of the occupations of our nation’s founders - many of whom were not lawyers. They included farmers, doctors, scientists and shopkeepers.
Now that I think about it, a fire extinguisher salesman would probably be more likely to crack down on the trial bar’s jackpot justice than most Harvard-educated judges. And what businessman or woman wouldn’t trust a fire extinguisher salesman to pick judges over a trial lawyer?
Fortunately, North Carolina’s elected officials weren’t frightened by 37-year-old anecdotes. Senator Dan Soucek of Boone cut to the chase: Allowing lawyer-dominated commissions to choose judges has “the potential to reduce freedom and liberty.” Well said.
Legal Elites Defend Judicial Imperialism in Connecticut
May 3, 2011
Three august members of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Fair and Impartial Courts Committee have taken to the op-ed pages to sing the virtues of the state’s system for selecting judges. In Connecticut, you see, a 12-member commission comprised of six lawyers and six politically-connected individuals gathers once a month to vet potential judicial candidates. This commission meets in secret at the New Haven Lawn Club (I’m not making this up), with no public record of the proceedings. By law, the governor can only pick a judge who has been blessed by this privileged panel.
If that clubby, insider’s game doesn’t sound very democratic to you, you’re in good company. Founder James Madison wrote in Federalist 39 that it was “essential” for a democratic government to be “derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.” “Even the judges,” Madison wrote, “be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves.”
Yet to our legal eagles, any attempt to balance judicial independence with accountability represents a “virus” that “takes the form of assaults” designed to “influence the outcomes of cases based on the passions of the moment or on temporal political winds.” These assaults “constitute an evil for which lawyers and citizens alike must be on guard.” They even see fit to pompously lecture legislators, who must confirm judicial appointments, over what questions are appropriate and which ones cross the line. Well!
Everyone agrees judges should be independent and no one wants prospective jurists handing out potential decisions in certain cases like so many campaign promises. But it is hardly an affront to judicial independence to have ordinary citizens or their elected representatives involved in the selection process, either through elections of an unrestricted appointive process. Like so many “merit” selection supporters, what these three lawyers really want is not judicial independence but judicial imperialism – where judges are free to rewrite laws and shape society to their own ideological preferences, and the people be damned.
Million Dollar Crybaby
May 3, 2011
The recount continues in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court contest between Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. After the smoke cleared on the April election, Prosser had carried the day with a close, but sure, 7,300 vote margin over Kloppenburg.
Rather than accept defeat, Kloppenburg pressed ahead, demanding a full, statewide recount. This, despite the fact that no other recount in Wisconsin history had overcome a margin of more than 500 votes.
At first, Kloppenburg’s demand appeared to be merely ungracious and unnecessary. Now, several days into the recount, what was unnecessary has become a total embarrassment. And a costly one, at that.
As of last Thursday, with just over one-quarter of the state’s votes recounted, Kloppenburg had gained a measly 111 votes. The cost to Wisconsin taxpayers for these 111 votes? $462,000 according to this handy Kloppenburg-o-meter supplied by the Legal Insurrection blog.
Legal Insurrection reports today that over half the state’s wards have now been recounted and Kloppenburg’s gains have shot up…by 37 votes…for a total gain of 148.
Despite the failure of a $1.7 million smear campaign against Prosser, Kloppenburg piled on with a needless recount that’s costing cash-strapped Wisconsin taxpayers $77,000/day.
Did you hear that? It’s the sound of millions of Wisconsin taxpayers slapping their foreheads.